The U.S. and Israeli war on Iran is in its second week with apparently no end in sight. There have been shifting statements from the Trump administration about when this could end, as well as the reasons for the attack in the first place.
U.S. Rep. Richard Neal Neal, a Springfield Democrat, who represents the state's first Congressional District, soke with NEPM's Kari Njiiri about this and other topics.
Kari Njiiri, NEPM: How satisfied are you with the administration's conduct of this war?
U. S Rep. Richard Neal: Well, I think that the narrative changes hour to hour. The State of the Union address occurred, and in 108 minutes, the president used exactly three minutes to talk about the threat from Iran. So, there was never any indication there was a resistance to a congressional resolution that would have required him to at least state the purpose, to give a timeline and to talk about the objectives. Instead, he decided that the attack would begin without any Congressional assent, and to this moment he still has not stated what the national or international purpose is.
Given that Congress rejected multiple war powers resolutions aimed at restricting the president's unauthorized military actions, how concerned are you that, what some are calling, Congress's total abdication of its responsibilities on this and other issues will somehow become the norm even after Trump?
In too many instances, it has become the norm. And I think that there's a reason in our constitutional system that Congress has the power to declare the war. The president has the power to conduct the war. In this particular instance, what the president has decided to do is both to declare the war and then subsequently to prosecute the war. I think the danger here is that, again, in terms of constitutional responsibility, I tirelessly remind people that members of Congress don't serve under presidents. They serve with presidents.
And I think that this arbitrary nature that the president has adopted as it relates to the bombing campaign in Iran, would have been far better off had there been a national conversation about priorities, a national conversation about realities, and a stated purpose as to why.
What's also interesting about this undertaking is that generally, wars that America engages in become fairly popular at the outset, and in other times, the support begins to wane if there's not an immediate objective and accomplishment. In this particular instance, the American people overwhelmingly have been against this from day one, largely because there has been no stated national or international purpose.
This war is already having an effect on the local level. Gas prices in the Bay state went up $0.40 a gallon within a week and continue to rise. Are you hearing from constituents about their concerns of this affecting their economy?
We certainly are. And if you consider that 20% of the world's energy moves through the Strait of Hormuz, that's a very important consideration. So, I think that we can expect the continued gyrations as it relates to oil and gas prices, largely because they are traded as international commodities in the open market. And the fact that the threat to the Strait of Hormuz is now preventing the free travel, that in and of itself indicates that there's going to continue to be a spike in prices at the pump.
Since you last talked with us, the jobs report for February came out, and although it says unemployment was unchanged, the economy lost some 92,000 jobs last month, including in health care. Now, you just finished moderating a discussion on the state of healthcare in Western Mass. What did you hear from hospital and other officials about how the Trump administration has affected their work, particularly in rural areas that you represent?
Well, if you take the longer view here, one of the things that jumps out at you immediately is that last year, there was really no job growth across the country. It was flat. And that's the reassessment. That's the visiting of the statistical data that is now once again being assessed. Other than healthcare, there were job losses substantially.
And what I did [Wednsday] in Pittsfield was to do what I did similarly, in Springfield about a month-and-a-half ago, and that was to talk about what the cuts are going to be from the president's big bill.
Pittsfield has a very fine healthcare system. And Berkshire Health is well known. It's renowned between North Adams and Berkshire Health and Fairview. They employ thousands of people. More than 4,000 people go to work there in the healthcare sector at Berkshire Systems. The challenge is that the president has postponed any of the proposed cuts until after the next election, and that is a fact. That is not something that is made up. So that means that $1 trillion of health cuts over the next ten years, and it's going to affect not only job growth, but the quality of care for all of us in Western and Central Massachusetts.
Talk about the immigration policies related to H-1B visas. That has an effect on rural hospitals, right?
It has a big effect because what it does is it prohibits the ability to recruit people to come to work in this healthcare system here in Berkshire County, as well as every place else across the country. The danger is that putting a price on those visas makes it more difficult for medics to be hired. Perhaps ambulance drivers to be hired, and certainly for nurses to be hired and recruited.
And I think that we have a challenge on all fronts across Massachusetts, as indeed we do across the country. So this idea that we're going to now assess $100,000 for an H-1B visa means that we're going to curtail the very workforce that we need.
